From Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands and Center for Urban
Policy & the Environment

The six study trail sites were selected to reflect differing community
populations, geographic locations, trail development-funding methods,
trail types and community types. The common parameter for trail selection
was that the trail had to be operating for longer than two years. The
six communities and trails studied were:

Fort Wayne, Rivergreenway Trail

Goshen, Maple City Greenway Trail

Greenfield, Pennsy Rail Trail

Indianapolis, Monon Rail Trail

Muncie, Cardinal Greenway Trail

Portage, Prairie Duneland Trail

The Trail Neighbors

The Indiana Trails Study was designed to obtain attitudes and opinions
from those property owners who lived adjacent to the trail, known as
trail neighbors. It was determined early that the best method to survey
the trail neighbors was a sample of all adjacent property owners as
provided by the trail agency. Each agency was asked to provide a listing
of trail neighbors from their city records so that all neighbors, as
defined by the local trail agency, would receive the mail survey. Response
rates from the trail cities ranged from 38% to 51% after follow-up mailings;
with an average response rate

Trail Effect on Property

Trail neighbors reported a number of effects on their property based
on the survey questions presented to them. A primary interest for most
trail neighbors and agencies developing trails is the effect of trail
development on property value and quality of life for the neighbors.
A very large percentage of trail neighbors viewed trail development
as having either no effect or a positive effect on their property's
value and on the salability of their property. Specifically 86% to 95%
of trail neighbors indicated they felt the trail had either no effect
or a positive effect on their property value. Coupled with trail neighbor
responses of between 81% and 93% indicating the trail had no negative
effect or made it easier to sell their property, it is clear the majority
of trail neighbors do not anticipate negative effects on the value and
ease of selling their property.

Living Near The Trail

This survey item was asked of trail neighbors who had purchased their
property before the trail was developed and allowed researchers to gauge
changes to the quality of life for those residents living adjacent to
the trail. Responding trail neighbors indicated that on an average 61%
of trail neighbors in all 6 cities felt the trail was a better neighbor
than expected. Trail neighbors reporting this perception ranged from
53% to 63%. Trail neighbors also indicated their belief that the trail
improved the quality of the neighborhood. The percentage of neighbors
who felt the trail improved the neighborhood ranged from 60% to 88%
with an average of 69% of all trail neighbors across all 6-trail sites.
Trail neighbors also indicated they were satisfied with the trail as
a neighbor.

These two opinions of trail neighbors, who owned their property before
the trail was developed, indicates that living near a trail would have
a positive or neutral impact on quality of life in the neighborhood.
Living near or adjacent to a trail can make it easy to use the trail.
Trail neighbors were asked to document the amount of use and time of
year during which they or members of their household may have used the
trail. Overall, trail neighbor use ranged from a low of 1.43 to a high
of 3.1 days per week. Seasonal trail use reflects the highest activity
level in summer, lowest trail use in the winter, and moderately high
use levels in spring and fall.

Between 70 and 95% of trail neighbors reported they used the trail.
This information reinforces the emphasis that trail neighbors find trails
to be relatively good neighbors and very convenient for members of their
households.

Trail Neighbor Issues, Dissatisfaction and Opinions

The controversy that sometimes occurs when trails are proposed is often
the direct result of trail neighbor fears and anticipated dissatisfaction
with the trail. The Indiana Trails Study solicited trail neighbor attitudes
and opinions with dissatisfaction factors and other issues related to
living adjacent to one of the 6 trails studied. The highest dissatisfaction
factor reported by trail neighbors in terms of percentage of responses
(20% to 29% of responding neighbors) and frequency across all 6-trail
cities is lack of safety patrols on the trails. The second most frequently
reported dissatisfaction issue reported by trail neighbors was parking
problems. This dissatisfaction was reported in 4 of the 6 trail cities
(Goshen, Indianapolis, Muncie and Portage) in percentages ranging from
15% to 25% of trail neighbors. Additional dissatisfaction factors were
reported that included a lack of maintenance on the trail, and agency
responsiveness to problems.

With the exception of trail neighbors adjacent to the Pennsy Rail Trail
in Greenfield (all commercial property uses), trail neighbors consistently
ranked the public benefits of providing open space, providing public
recreation, health and fitness opportunity, community pride, aesthetic
beauty, and disabled access as extremely important in percentage responses
ranging from 33% to 58%. The ratings are not consistent among public
benefits, rank order or percentage of neighbors rating the benefit as
extremely important, but are notable for the large percentage of trail
neighbors having extremely supportive views on the general public benefits
of trails.

Of course, trail neighbors do experience incidents or activities that
lead to negative perceptions. These problems are thought to occur frequently
on adjacent properties, creating issues of concern for trail neighbors.
While it is generally known that trail neighbors feel a relative lack
of privacy, specific problems are often not quantified. Indiana Trails
Study trail neighbors were asked to indicate the most common problems
they experienced.

The most commonly reported problem, illegal vehicle use, relates to
use of motorized vehicles on trail right of way and is most frequent
in 5 of the 6 trail sites surveyed. The next most commonly reported
problem, unleashed pets roaming along trails, was also common to 5 of
the 6 trail sites surveyed. Other frequently reported problems included
litter from trail users, and excessive noise, which were reported in
2 of the 6 trail cities. Only Greenfield's Pennsy Rail Trail neighbors
(commercial property) reported burglary as a frequent problem.

Trail Neighbor Findings

The survey of trail neighbors in the Indiana Trails Study provides
valuable and important data regarding trail neighbor opinion, attitude
and issues for future trail development and management. The survey indicates
that:

A majority of trail neighbors reported either no effect or a positive
effect on property value and ease of selling property located adjacent
to the trail

The trail was felt to be a better neighbor than expected and to
improve the quality of the neighborhood by a large majority of trail
neighbors

Trail neighbors are heavy users of the trail itself, reporting,
on average, 2-3 days of trail use

Over 70%, and as much as 95% of all trail neighbors reported using
the trail during the prior 12 months

Trail neighbors are most dissatisfied with a lack of safety patrols
and parking problems in the vicinity of their property

Those trail neighbors responding to the survey indicated illegal
vehicle use and unleashed pets roaming along the trail are the most
common problems

Realtor Conversations

The Indiana Trails Study originally designed a focus group research
protocol with local realtors in each city as a means of measuring trail
impacts on real estate. After poor attendance at focus groups, and to
reduce time and data collection costs, a change was made in research
methodology to conduct individual telephone interviews of realtors in
each city. The individual telephone interviews were conducted between
November and December 2000 with at least 10 realtors in each community.
The results of this qualitative research were recorded for analysis
April 15, 2007emerging trends from all six trail cities included:

The biggest advantages to trail development adjacent to personal
property was easy, close to home access to recreational facilities
for families with children

Realtors did not see any major increases in property value, or ease
in property sale as a result of trail development

The biggest disadvantages to trail development adjacent to personal
property were a decrease in privacy and an increase in foot traffic
near the homeowner yards

Conclusions

A review of the Trail Summary Data Tables in Appendix A reveals there
is a significant amount of similarity between the users and neighbors
of all the trails studied in this project. In fact, it is difficult
to find differences in use patterns, trail user demographics and attitudes
and trail neighbor opinions and interests between the various trails.
This consistency between trail use, trail users and trail neighbors
in cities throughout different geographic regions of the State is remarkable.
Further conclusions from the Indiana Trails Study are divided into two
general areas; those dealing with trail users and those dealing with
trail neighbors as follows:

Trail Users were found to use the trail mostly after work and during
the weekend. They primarily use the trail for fitness and exercise for
a 1/2-hour or more. Trail users were found to mostly use the trail for
walking and biking, although smaller percentages of users did use the
trail to run and skate. The Study found that most trail users were from
upper-middle class income households, college educated and between 26
and 55 years old. The Study found that most trail users lived within
2 miles of the trail, mostly drive to the trail and were highly satisfied
with the trail.

Trail Neighbors were found to be regular trail users. The trail neighbors
also indicated they were largely satisfied with the subject trail as
a neighbor, and that the trail had no effect or a positive impact on
their property values. The Study found that trail neighbors are more
concerned with problems relating to illegal vehicle use, parking and
noise (privacy issue), than litter or maintenance problems.

Recommendations

The Indiana Trails Study was remarkable in the amount of information
it obtained. The breadth of questions in the Study sacrificed the gathering
of details, instead opting to create preliminary or reconnaissance level
information regarding trail preferences and operational issues from
trail users and neighbors. This information should be advanced with
further research focusing on trail planning and management preferences,
privacy, accessibility, crossing preferences and relations to amenities
and open space. While further development of trail planning, neighbor
privacy, user accessibility, open space and amenity preferences, and
other design and management factors should be conducted with sponsoring
agency support, it is clear that some preliminary recommendations regarding
these issues can be made.

Recommendation 1: Trail planning and development agencies should
include all trail neighbors and users in planning and recommendation
meetings. It is further recommended, that summaries of this trail report
be used early in any trail planning process to inform and educate trail
neighbors, trail users and agency personnel as to the potential issues
and facts about trail use.

In many ways, the Indiana Trails Study confirmed what is already understood
about trail development, and has been found in other trail developments
across the country. First, it is obvious that the key constituencies
in trail development will be trail users and neighbors. The carefully
planned involvement of trail neighbors and users in public trail planning
and development decisions seems like a logical and appropriate choice.
Yet, some agencies have been observed not including these key constituents
in planning.

Recommendation 2: Planning for trail development should be expanded
beyond physical improvements and financing to consider a) the creation
of trail neighbor privacy enhancements such as landscaping, b) operational
improvements including safety patrols, c) volunteer litter pickup groups,
d) addition of signage and monitoring requiring pets to be leashed,
e) peak hour demand design in trail width and parking area size, f)
funding linkages of trail operation and construction costs to health
and wellness organizations such as local hospitals, and g) implementation
of annual use fees to fund safety patrols, and other trail operation
or maintenance costs.

Recommendation 3: Trail managers should strongly consider developing
staffing and safety patrol scheduling schemes, or arrange for volunteer
EMT or paramedic patrols that reflect peak trail use patterns, allowing
for high visibility and assistance during these times. Trail use patterns
in the Indiana Trails Study show definite peak demand times for trail
use. These peak demands are fairly predictable based on work and leisure
schedules of the general populace and can be anticipated fairly easily
by trail managers.

Recommendation 4: Trail planners should more aggressively support
commuter use of trails by requiring requests for trail development funding
to include an analysis and survey of potential commuting users, and
any work-home nexus identified in the trail area.

Clearly, the Indiana Trails Study found that trail users relied heavily
on driving and entry/exit to the trail at the same access point along
the trail. With commuters representing a small number of trail users
in the Indiana Trails Study, the potential is considered high for the
development of enhancements and enticements to trail area employers
to increase commuter effectiveness for trails in more densely developed
areas.

Recommendation 5: Trail planners should more aggressively support
visitor and tourist use of trails, and cooperate in planning for visitor
access to the trails through inclusion of visitor serving attractions
in route planning and trail development.

The unrealized potential of trails was identified in the Indiana Trails
Study, as visitor user patterns were minimal. In comparison, other trails
and trails studies have reported a high amount of visitor use of multi-purpose
trails, and the ensuing economic impact of visitor expenditures in food/beverage,
lodging and ancillary sectors of the local economy. This unrealized
potential is considered significant as trails begin to connect between
cities.

Recommendation 6: Trail developers and managers should pursue
collaborative strategic partnerships with health and wellness service
providers based on the Indiana Trails Study that users primarily use
the trail for health and fitness.

Another example of unrealized potential from the Indiana Trails Study
is found in the significant amount of trail users who reported that
health/fitness purposes were their primary purpose for using the trail.
With Indiana's ranking by the Center for Disease Control as one of the
most obese states in the nation, and the potential societal cost benefits
to Indiana of emphasizing cardiac and overall health, the benefits of
local trail agency partnerships for trail planning, construction, enhancements
and programs with health and wellness organizations are noteworthy.
The potential positive impacts of this type of collaborative partnership
are estimated to be exceptional.

Recommendation 7: Local trail management agencies and organizations
should regularly conduct trail use research and conduct surveys to better
understand trail use patterns, user concerns, and trails neighbor issues.

A key benefit of the Indiana Trails Study was the collection and documentation
of Indiana trail use patterns, management operational facts, user opinions
and neighbor concerns. In retrospect the information obtained represents
"base line" research that is an important and effective tool
for the pubic agencies managing trails and trail areas. Yet, some agencies
do not conduct research in trail use and other factors relating to trail
operations and management. An upfront minimum investment of $500- $2,000
(plus agency staff time) for infrared trail counter purchase and conducting
mail surveys seems small in light of the positive information and trend
issues this investment can create. It is apparent that collection of
data of the type collected in the Indiana Trails Study is essential
to documenting use levels and addressing concerns.

Recommendation 8: The Indiana Trails Study should be viewed
as a reconnaissance level study that creates the opportunity for more
detailed, longer-term, (i.e. one-year) study of additional trails.

Obviously the Indiana Trails Study found many similar conclusions about
the 6 trails in the Study. While there are remarkable and very notable
similarities between the trails, it should be noted that each trail
area is still unique, and future trails areas will be unique. Trail
planning agencies should be careful about assuming that trail user patterns,
user opinions and neighbor attitudes will be similar to other trail
sites. Use of the conclusions and data found in the Indiana Trails Study
should be carefully generalized to reflect the broad findings as applied
to these 6 specific sites. Additionally, the Indiana Trails Study was
a "snapshot" of users over a limited time period of a few
months in the summer and fall. This data is limited in many respects,
and while it can be generalized to some extent, it is not as comprehensive
or complete as it could be.

The Indiana Trails Study was conducted between June and November
2000 with the purpose of identifying information and trends on trail
use, trail management and trail impacts. The Study was conducted in
6 Indiana cities on trail segments that were at least 2 years old and
represented various populations and trail types. In conducting the Indiana
Trails Study, trail users and trail neighbors were surveyed, trail use
levels were monitored and local realtors were contacted regarding trails
in the community. The research process involved significant cooperation
from various state agencies including INDOT and IDNR, as well as the
support and assistance of the National Park Service and the local agencies
managing the 6 trails in the Study.